Replies

There are no professional vetters as I have explained about 10 times now.

I fear we're still talking past one another - that's precisely my complaint, and precisely why this problem is systemic, and not specific to Norquist. You can hang Grover Norquist from the nearest tree, and there's still no mechanism in place for insuring that the same exact thing doesn't happen again next week, or next month, or next year. Assume for a moment that Norquist is a bona fide fifth columnist, devoted to influencing the United States government on behalf of al Qaeda or whatever. Does it even remotely make sense that the only way the White House knows that fact is if Grover is good enough to spill the beans on his own? And if he's really some sort of agent provocateur, what the hell are the odds of that?

That's the crux of my complaint, and I think the gist of what a lot of other folks are complaining about - when you have terrorists and what-have-you wandering around the White House, "it's not my/our job to say anything" is NOT an acceptable reason for sitting back and letting it happen. We all pay good money to keep track of the bad guys, and letting them cavort around the Oval Office is not exactly what any of us have in mind as the appropriate course of action for law enforcement or intel folks. Call me crazy or whatever, but the notion that someone's anti-terrorism portfolio ends at 1600 Pennsylvania is just absurd, and it reeks of CYOA - at the expense of the political branches of government and the taxpayers themselves.

And FWIW, even if you turn out to be who you imply you are, and know all the things you imply you know, I'm not particularly sorry for giving you the whip and riding you hard on that score. If anything, I'm sorry that the state of the world and the state of the internet is such that we're forced into things like that, but that's the way it is, whether we all like it or not. It's not personal. It's never been personal - jest bidness, so to speak. Next week, it'll be someone else walking across the hot coals instead of you - such is the nature of the beast. And if I'm right to be suspicious...well, that'll just be one more case confirming the necessity of such suspicion, won't it?

"Does it even remotely make sense that the only way the White House knows that fact is if Grover is good enough to spill the beans on his own" ....etc.

1) Islamists, not "AlQaeda" specifically, but who knows?

2) I have nowhere said anyone says "its not their job" -- you keep interpreting it that way. Nor did I say that no one in the White House knew or knows. Quite the opposite. And yes, it's very very very hard to believe, understand forgive or fix. But it is not hard to show. I am with you on the frustration.

What I have said again and again is how the process works; and, that when some have tried, from the LE side, to tell the WH pols what to do, they got kicked in the teeth and told to mind their own business or worse. So don't blame them.

I cited the USSS incident re AlArian's son, (and the father by the way) and the Aldrich case with the Clintons. You get yelled at by the WH once, the next time you get fired. Everyone gets the message. (So you should get it too.)

I was called (4/01) to provide the Vice President's staff with background briefing on many of these groups and their leaders ahead of the AlArian mtg,(6/01). It was made clear who the people in question were, from only open source information! The result, in that case, was that the VP, who was originally scheduled to speak to these groups at the WH, did not. He made a travel excuse to the Muslim groups and it was proferred at the event; the ranking person they met with instead was Rove!

So some get it, but not enough to stop it all from happening, although that is what was recommended. Rove did the meeting anyway. (I don't know that the Cheney staff or the VP told Rove as to why the Vp wouldn't attend.) The rest is history. Others in the WH, NSC and media, as well as major donors and political acquaintances, have raised it with Rove and he says something to the effect of "I've heard that before..." and other things of a similarly glib and unserious sort.

That was the same June 01 mtg that Al Arian and Alamoudi attended. In researching that brief I first came upon the Austin picture with Alamoudi, Saffuri, Bray, Awad, Saaed, et al, and candidate Bush -- the one Grover arranged (see Gaffney, National Journal, etc.)

Point: The White House has been told from Rove on down. I have had at least 4 such WH meetings. David Frum knew about it when he worked there, and wrote about it over a year ago in his book I am told. KARL doesn't want do anything about it, or he just doesn't believe it is/is going to be a problem.

But, Yes, it is also the responsibility of Grover to stop putting everyone he can within the proximity of these people.

3) RE FBI etc., Look, it is a matter of public record that many in the media, WH and within the Bureau itself, strongly opposed the FBI Director meeting with Alamoudi's American Muslim Council last summer. Keyes, Gaffney, Brit Hume and several others warned about it on TV and in print, as did Pipes, and other editorialists. Gaffney debated the ED of the AMC the night before Mueller's mtg. on "Hardball" --during which debate the guy refused repeatedly, as he had done on Keys and some Fox program to denounce Hamas, Hizb, or even AlQaeda -- finally muttering to Gaffney that Al Qaeda was involved in "resistance activity." [[by the way, that ED, Ervan Vickers, had a charity, IARA, that had its money yanked by USAID in the Clinton Admin because it was linked to logistical support to terror in Sudan and in the Embassy bombings. Judith Miller wrote about it in the NYTimes. FBI knew that too. Anyone with an internet or a library card could figure it out in a half hour. The charity still exists under a different name, and works with the UN! ]]

OK, SO the next day Mueller was the keynote speaker at their conference in DC. Now you know d*&^d well that the FBI has been on Alamoudi for years, and just arrested him last month. You know that at least one other AMCer, Soliman Biheri, has been convicted this year, a case I'd guess that was clearly in process when Mueller spoke to AMC. Now why do you think the FBI Director did this appearance despite the media pressure not to, all of whcih laid out the terror issues in stark detail, and after being called by his colleagues inother agencies, and having senior agents complain, and journalists aksing the FBI asst dir for media ? Well, I would stipulate, that as with Ridge ONeill and Powell, to name a few that are on record saying so in their cases, Rove called and said "DO IT".

The only compromise that good LE/IC people were able to get was a sentence added by the NSC saying that some in the AMC had been on a different page, (FBI HQ switched that to "in the past" which was an untrue alteration). A--- a VERY important signal in DC, protocol and policy-wise: the NSC succeeded in changing the speech to say "I want to thank the American Muslim community" -- instead of "American Muslim Council" -- and so he did, and then the d^*( W. Post article on Saturday said, Mueller "thanked the American Muslim Council" !! Can't win even when you win.

Reminds me of a funny story: when Hillary returned American Muslim Council's money during her campaign -- after Alamoudi sounded off about Hamas and Hizb. in a public rally across from the White House -- the Hillary campaign listed the repost in the FEC filing as "American Museum Council" --hoping nobody would notice. Later claimed it was a typo. Typical. BUT also shows you how much not only the WH, FBI and media know about these people, but how much Rove and Grover could and should have, esp. re such high profile people as AlArian, Alamoudi and his deputy, Saffuri, who runs Grover's operation.

Everyone in town and dealing remotely with Muslims has always knew who Alamoudi was and that he always was the power behind the AMC -- even when he changed the name plate on his desk and became the head of the American Muslim Foundation, the c4 org. (along with the US office of IRO, aka Success Fdn. and other entities). But the name change allows Grover and other who want to , to say "O, the AMC isn't Alamoudi anymore." The affadvit for his arrest states he control the AMC. So now maybe the will keep doing AMC meetings b/c, "O, Alamoudi's in jail."

So a lot of people are doing a lot of things to get the larger problem fixed (Islamists access and infiltration of the US and allied governments and societies) and get whatever subelements of it we can along the way. The Rove/Grover and who knows who else fixation has been the hardest and because it is what it is, it has had an blocking effect across the board pretty much on the larger issue. The apex of the problem, govt'-wide is of course the SAUDI QUESTION, as nicely exampled in the Kyl hearings and in the last cover story on USNEWS to which I , and Gaffney's organization (quoted in same) contributed.

By the way, Grover's been pretty much forced out of National Review, American Specator and a lot of other places for this Islamist business and for treating people the same way he treated Gaffney if they dared raise a question. He's done it to editors and movement people ranging from Rich Lowry and Mona Charen to Jack Wheeler. He has done himself huge damage and the longer he digs in the more he will do. Because of the personal nature of his attacks, many have now seen a different side of him (you see a person's true character when they are under pressure)-- that will cause them to be very slow to forgive him, even assuming he stops the Islamists efforts.
He and Grover are now 2 years into this and still are able to say, "Hey, Gaffney and other's have been saying it's, at a minimum, a political risk aborning, but we haven't seen any problem yet." That's the same way they look at everything -- politics (Votes & Money).

It's Karl Rove's anti-terrorism porfolio (sic) that seems to end at 1600 PA Ave.! No one every accused Grover of having one in the first place. It is after all the 'Islamic Free Market Institute" Right.

I hope this is helpful. I'd like to see you be "suspicious" about Grover, too. I don't have the time or inclination to answer much more; I've reviewed the information, postings, etc. anm I think there is enough here without the need for further repitition, etc.